D&D 5E Multiclass in 5E

[BobTheNob]

I will say that any multiclass system they create should not use XP.

5e is meant to be modular, and XP is a commonly altered or thrown away mechanic.

If you look at 3e, you technically had xp losses for multiclassing outside of favored classes, but I've never used or seen that restriction used in all the 3e games I played....but I'm sure other people did.

So there solution has to be more core to the game, XP won't do the job.

Someone give this man a cigar. I couldnt, apparently I have given you too many.

This is exactly right. For our purposes, we scrapped XP tracking when 3e first came out, and good ridence. If XP tracking is required to enable multiclassing, Im going to cry.

Regardless, I distinctly dislike varying rates of advancement being the balancing/enabling factor for multiclassing just as much as I dislike it for handling class balance (remember the XP charts for the 2e- theif).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

To summarize it to a more fundamental level: Multiclass balance should not adjust the rate at which a character levels.

My problem with that is that it appears to lock in the 3E fundamental mistake that every level is just as good as another any other level. That is, it equates taking a 1st level of barbarian (or sorcerer or whatever) as equally good for a 10th level character of any class mix, which is clearly false. (I don't think that the designers of 3E thought they were equally good. They knew some were traps. But the system pretends that the levels are equally good, because the character pays the same for it.)

If you know a way out of that which isn't a big mess to handle, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My problem with that is that it appears to lock in the 3E fundamental mistake that every level is just as good as another any other level. That is, it equates taking a 1st level of barbarian (or sorcerer or whatever) as equally good for a 10th level character of any class mix, which is clearly false. (I don't think that the designers of 3E thought they were equally good. They knew some were traps. But the system pretends that the levels are equally good, because the character pays the same for it.)

If you know a way out of that which isn't a big mess to handle, I'd like to hear it.

The way out: the default should be class abilities key to character level rather than class level.

Therefore:
* A Fighter9/Paladin1 can Smite Evil once per day for +Cha/+10.
* A Fighter9/Wizard1 can cast 5 Magic Missiles with his 1st level spell slot.
* A Wizard5/Fighter5 can cast a 10d6 Fireball.

Now there may be tweaks necessary to soften the frontloading, but the basic model holds.

The fundamental design error in 3e multiclassing is that many (but not all) class abilities are tied to the class level. We should simply erase that factor. A 10th level character needs class abilities that a highly useful to CR 10 threats -- everything else is just flavor. I do not see a problem with a Wizard5/Fighter5 having one or two spells per day that every bit as good as the Wizard10 second string options.

 

[Celestian]

why yes i can riiiiiiiight here!

Thanks for the link.

That is very unfortunate. Multi-class system in 3e was the worst version for me. I actually preferred the hybrid system introduced in 4e to the 3e system.

I will keep my fingers crossed and hope they go with the AD&D after all. 3e system is "dual class", not multi-class.

 

[Greg K]

The difference is that in 3E, your first level of wizard taken at level 2 costs as much as if you'd taken a second level of fighter instead. In 1E, your cost for level 2 for both classes is the same as if you were single-classing... you just level half as quickly in either.

Just minor points, but
a. 3e had a variant where character could start at first level as 0/0 level multiclass, but you didn't get full benefits of both until second level
b. 1e also had training costs (although not everyone used them) and you had to spend time and gold to train in each separately for leveling (if you failed to train in a class when it was time to level, you could not level in it until you did).

 

[Greg K]

My problem with that is that it appears to lock in the 3E fundamental mistake that every level is just as good as another any other level. That is, it equates taking a 1st level of barbarian (or sorcerer or whatever) as equally good for a 10th level character of any class mix, which is clearly false. (I don't think that the designers of 3E thought they were equally good. They knew some were traps. But the system pretends that the levels are equally good, because the character pays the same for it.)

If you know a way out of that which isn't a big mess to handle, I'd like to hear it.

Well, the impression that I got from something Stan! wrote in a d20M product was that the inequality you talk about was intentional and explained the difference between multiclassing in D&D and d20M. d20M was designed assuming characters would multiclass, because in modern times it is easier pick up new professions, take classes and pick up new training due to transportation, communication methods, proliferation of colleges, extension courses, seminars and other schools etc.
This is how I viewed it. Personally, I think ease of multiclassing is too easy in 3e. I think the training rules variant from the DMG should have been the default with longer training times.
Old martial artists in our own world talked about needing letters of introduction to go train with someone and it was rare to be accepted by a second instructor. There had to be special circumstances. Bouncing from instructor to instructor would not be accepted. Heck caucasians learning Chinese martial arts was frowned upon until the late 60's or early 70's here in the US. Now, add to all of that that it takes 3-10 years to get a black belt (and most likely your first level D&D monk is the equivalent of 3rd-5th level in one that teaches chi kung or its equivalents in other styles and you are talking a long period to gain first level as a monk.

 

[1of3]

If you know a way out of that which isn't a big mess to handle, I'd like to hear it.

Some kind of out of class progression could help. They did this with Bo9S where levels in other classes counted as half levels in Bo9S classes.

For 5e they could do something similar. For example, when you take your first level Fighter you get a fighting style and a CS die. Out of class levels could allow access to that fighting styles higher techniques, but no more CS dice.

As the presented classes so far all share (or in the case of the Wizard will share) a kind of subclass (Combat Style, Scheme, Pact, Domain, Origin, Wizard School), you could go with this method for all classes.

 

[Tovec]

My problem with that is that it appears to lock in the 3E fundamental mistake that every level is just as good as another any other level. That is, it equates taking a 1st level of barbarian (or sorcerer or whatever) as equally good for a 10th level character of any class mix, which is clearly false. (I don't think that the designers of 3E thought they were equally good. They knew some were traps. But the system pretends that the levels are equally good, because the character pays the same for it.)

If you know a way out of that which isn't a big mess to handle, I'd like to hear it.

This brings up a good point. How good or effective should a multiclass character be? How much of a new class should get added to an existing class?

Should a level 5 fighter/level 1 wizard be the same as a level 3 fighter/level 3 wizard?

I don't have any answers here. I think that we need to look into what we want from multiclassing before we start getting bogged down in the details of what is wrong with previous versions.

I said it before, but I prefer multiclassing to be something that represents additional training or refocusing later in a character's life. I look for multiclassing to bring new abilities or additional focus to an existing character. But I'm not necessarily looking to become a spell-blade. It is usually going with similar classes or at least ones that add a very specific effect. Fighter-Ranger or Paladin-Monk or whatever would often apply here before Fighter-Wizard.

I know others of you want something more akin to dual-classing or gestalt or hybrids, where you advance as both a fighter and a wizard at the same time. I like this too but it isn't necessarily what I'm looking for primarily with multiclassing. If for no other reasons than this, I think we need to look at 2 different versions of multiclassing.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Some kind of out of class progression could help. They did this with Bo9S where levels in other classes counted as half levels in Bo9S classes.

For 5e they could do something similar. For example, when you take your first level Fighter you get a fighting style and a CS die. Out of class levels could allow access to that fighting styles higher techniques, but no more CS dice.

As the presented classes so far all share (or in the case of the Wizard will share) a kind of subclass (Combat Style, Scheme, Pact, Domain, Origin, Wizard School), you could go with this method for all classes.

When I've seen this tried before, it typically comes out as that "big mess to handle" I mentioned. However, I haven't seen the Bo9S version, and thus don't know how clean it is. Like half ranks in skill ranks, this is something I prefer to see cleaned out of a new system from scratch.

I suppose in your 5E suggested variant, if the list of "subclasses" is small enough, you can simply show progression in each one in a kind of master class. Or more likely, show the "off level" progression in each class. Hmm, still not sure that comes out clean ...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, the impression that I got from something Stan! wrote in a d20M product was that the inequality you talk about was intentional and explained the difference between multiclassing in D&D and d20M. d20M was designed assuming characters would multiclass, because in modern times it is easier pick up new professions...

I take it from this that d20M (odern?) has a cleaner version of the original? How does it work that makes it cleaner?